you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -16 points 2 months ago (52 children)

were worse,

You're just not gonna budge it doesn't matter believe what you want. Thousands of queers were imprisoned. Millions lost their cultural and religious identity. The Soviet Union did not have favorable trade deals, they had full scale occupations. We can sit here all day and say who was worse but the bigger thing is NOBODY WAS SAFE so it's completely irrelevant it isn't even a light slap vs a death penalty, it is straight up government-funded harassment campaigns everywhere. There is no "lax" when it comes to government repression dude.

And then you look at today and the West has absolutely come out far ahead for the LGBTQIA+ community by a long shot because it actually was better in the West.

As for comparing post-socialist countries to contemporary capitalist countries, you are not making an honest comparison of socialism to capitalism.

I don't have to because fortunately human rights don't apply directly to those structures, they're different across each nation that embraces those ideals. Socialists governments want to pretend they champion for human rights but they don't if anyone is oppressed, they're just choosing which demographics to support which is exactly how the rest of the world does it too. You're being completely disingenuous trying to frame it as a this or that argument, there are not two sides to human rights.

But you're not interested in being fair, you just want the soviet union to be some rainbow paradise or something when it was not. It constricted so hard on the queer community that the identity was completely shadowed and still to this day is goes largely unidentified and unrecorded except for a few like Gennady Trifonov who barely managed to get his story out. Whatever man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 52 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago (50 children)

    The claim I gave was that the Soviet Union was historically progressive compared to peer capitalist countries. I never said they were progressive compared to modern western countries when it comes to queer rights, and when it comes to women's rights, worker's rights, and more, the Soviet Union was more progressive than the US is today. You are shifting the goalpost to the idea that I said the Soviet Union was flawless even by modern standards, which I never said.

    Further, you again try to draw a direct line from a socialist federation of countries to the horrendously reactionary states that replaced them. There is no material basis for this, otherwise the Tsarist system would have continued culturally into the Soviet system. They clearly did not, the Soviet Union was enormously progressive compared to the Tsarist system, just like the modern reactionary states are far more reactionary than the Soviet Union was.

    You have no leg to stand on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 50 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 2 months ago* (49 children)

    Human rights were also quite strong in the USSR, especially compared to capitalist countries.

    This is what you said. You're having ESPECIALLY do a lot of leg work in that sentence. They really weren't strong at all which is evident in the culture today. The actual sentence should be:

    Human rights were existent in the USSR that capitalist countries hadn't embraced, and vice versa.

    And my point to this is how these are viewed today. In post soviet countries LGBTIA+ is completely repressed, it is literally dangerous to be queer in some places not even openly queer, just queer. Racism runs rampant. Cultures are completely broken from these actions. Which is why I bring up looking at today because Cause and Effect is real and it is how historians help understand the evolution of a culture. If the Soviet Union had such progressive stances they'd have impacted today's culture, and in many ways they do not. Abuse against women is still rampant with even less support from the government than it had before, LGBTQIA+ individuals are in extreme danger in some of these post soviet countries. It just doesn't add up and I don't understand why you want to defend that so aggressively that you won't even budge or support those truths.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 49 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago (47 children)

    And my point to this is how these are viewed today. In post soviet countries LGBTIA+ is completely repressed, it is literally dangerous to be queer in some places not even openly queer, just queer.

    lol, lmao even

    How is a state that is now capitalist and reactionary the fault of USSR? This happened because of the absence of it! Do you liberals not have object permanence??

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 47 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 2 months ago (46 children)

    How is a state that is now capitalist and reactionary the fault of USSR?

    Because there was never a shift ever to be pro-queer. That is a complete lie many people in this thread are trying to push.

    Do you liberals not have object permanence??

    Okay.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 46 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago* (45 children)

    Nobody said the USSR shifted to be pro-queer. What was stated was that the USSR was consistently less anti-queer than the west, which is thanks to their overall higher levels of social progressivism. You either misread unintentionally, or are deliberately taking a bad-faith stance. I like to think it's the former, but only you can answer that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 45 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Sweden still considered Homosexuality as a mental illness and was a country that practiced eugenics far into the 70s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

    Ideas do not exist independently of their material conditions. By shifting from an analysis of material conditions and the social relations that spring from them to one of "culture," you are placing ideas outside of their context in material reality, and moving to the realm of supernatural thinking. In other words, this is pure idealism and is anti-scientific. Idealism has more in common with fascism than it does with socialism, so I really do think you should be careful. Fascists use the "culture" argument to argue against immigration, in favor of colonialism, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    You aren't viewing the whole picture, though. You're abstracting the Soviet Union from its historical context and measuring it against standards of an entirely different historical era. Further, again, you are placing far too much of an emphasis on culture while treating it as though it exists independent from the society and the social relations compelled by it. This is an idealist argument, not a materialist one.

    Here's a simple exercise: why did women's rights dramatically expand upon the implementation of socialism?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Honestly for the same reason it did in the west. There was a massive need for economic resources, manpower. And limiting half your workforce because culture was stupid and everyone realized that.

    This is what was happening globally at the time as well. Even before the West made laws to support women in workforces, there were plenty of women working far before that too. Because laws aren't the only thing that matters, culture does.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    The economic basis of capitalism also reinforces the nuclear family, as you can treat domestic labor as unpaid labor for recreating the paid labor of the male worker. Socialism brought with it profound cultural changes as well as economic changes that put the Soviets ahead of the west, despite the west being capitalist for longer than Russia was.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (36 children)

    Meanwhile Alan Turing was castrated and driven to suicide. I said consistently, not permanently and in all cases.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (35 children)

    And thousands were imprisoned for "pederasty" see: homosexuality into work camps and their stories completely repressed because information control was a massive tenet of the Sovier Union. While today, everyone knows of Alan Turing's story and he is championed as a hero in the west for what he did because the west did in fact have plenty more freedoms and were much more progressive in many more ways than the soviet union.

    Someone else in this thread, maybe you I'm not sure, claimed the west referred to all homosexuals as pedophiles. The Soviet Union did the same. And people today are still acting like they weren't going after homosexuals, they were only targeting pedophiles which is completely untrue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (34 children)

    The soviet union does not exist today. The soviet union's treatment of homosexuals was far more leniant than western countries in general, which coincides with being enormously socially progressive when it comes to ethnicity and gender as well. Nobody is arguing that the soviet union of the 1930s was progressive when it comes to the LGBTQIA+ community if compared to the US today, but such a comparison is ludicrous to begin with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (33 children)

    Work camps are not progressive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    Work camps

    You mean prison. Work camp is nonsense used to demonise non western countries as barbaric (and often used in an attempt to evoke images of the nazi extermination machine even when they are not at all the same). Also what was progressive in the 40s 50s and 60s would be regressive by today's standard yet that doesn't mean it wasn't progressive for the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 months ago (13 children)
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (12 children)

    Almost like progressive for it's time doesn't mean progressivenand perfect for eternity ?!?!?! Please read what people are saying before responding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    Whene did anyone say anything like that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    The USSR was more progressive than the west at the time, that doesn't mean the west wasn't progressive at all or the the USSR was the only one? Are you sure you can read?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

    Your initial comment was stupid.

    "The USSR was way more progressive on racial equality, women's rights, workplace rights, anticolonialism etc but also they weren't perfect and thus can be equated with the west who were still actively engaging in colonialism, genocide, slavery, segregation etc" it's ridiculous. The USSR was one of the most progressive forces of the time the fact the west had minimal progression at the same time does not make them comparable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Sure the USSR was a paradise for everyone. Nothing bad happened and nobody was ever hurt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago

    Okay that was actuality a great marketing campaign for Doomdays, I'm already hating the villain so much right now, I'm so fucking ready to see Thor and the gang beating Doom to death.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago*

    It's worth noting that the USSR ended the Gulag system in the 1960s while capitalist countries like the united states continue to use prison as a means for cheap (practically unpaid) forced labor. Soviet prisoners were also paid comparable wages to free workers not only out of principle but so they would not be severely disadvantaged once out of prison.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (16 children)

    Soviet prisons were generally more progressive than western prisons, especially considering western countries were largely colonial powers (and are now neocolonial powers). Soviets even viewed handcuffs as barbaric and paid prisoners wages comparable to outside wages, the compulsion for work was out of a belief that work itself is good. They didn't treat prison labor the same way the US does today, for pennies a day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 months ago (16 children)
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Oh shit, nice homophobia. Mask off for you? Either way, yes, the soviet prisons were progressive compared to western peers, especially considering they weren't committing genocide around the world like the west was. Read Russian Justice.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    Jesus christ take the cock out of you’re mouth.

    Nice homophobia bigot. Go fuck yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 2 months ago (14 children)
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (12 children)

    Still homophobic to say shit like that asshole again go fuck yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    "he said a bad word, everything he said was wrong!"

    Whatever gang, cya

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    "I can't argue back at all because my arguments are shit and relies on strawmanning and making shit up!"

    Fucking debatebros, you're all terrible

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    "Fucking bloodthirsty racist shitlibs!!"

    -continues to support your brand of colonialism and oppression I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    How many times are you going to leave? I thought debate was over?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Didn't you also say cya? Go away lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [+] -7 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago

    Using modern day culture in reactionary states as evidence for human rights in entirely different socialist states is, as I already said, horrendously wrong. Again, social rights dramatically expanded compared to Tsardom, and dramatically shrank after the dissolution of socialism. The idea that the modern reaction is evidence of a lack of human rights in an entirely different socioeconomic system lends itself more to biological determinism than to a materialist analysis.

    Further, you are again stating that you do not care about placing your analysis within historical context. You deem the present to be the bar to judge against, despite the fact that even the most progressive states today will be considered horribly reactionary in the future. This is why I stressed the importance of comparing to contemporary peers, because I am indisputably correct in that statement.

    You are trying to argue 2 falsehoods:

    1. There is no meaningful change in the human rights in society when the entire social form reverses.

    2. The Soviet Union should be measured against the arbitrary levels of present day human rights, not placed in its historical context.

    You don't have truths to defend, your entire argument rests on believing there to have been no meaningful change in social relations when the move from socialism to capitalism happened, and that these changes could be compared to modern capitalist countries.

    I did not make the argument that modern Russia is more socially progressive than the modern US. I made the argument that the historical Soviet Union was more socially progressive than the historical west, which is indisputably true. You cannot argue with my actual claim, so you have to move the goalpost.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago*

    It feels like you are struggling to understand historical events and entities as parts of historical processes. Yes the USSR did stuff we look back at and go, wow that was fucked up huh. That's to be expected as we have historically progressed from the point they were at. The USSR wasn't gonna undo centuries of social conditioning in a decade, that was not feasible. You can't thanos snap homophobia from existence by royal decree. I would have loved if the Soviet Union spawned into existence with all the values I have today but it didn't. It was birthed with all the prejudices of working people in Czarist Russia and had to eat away at them over time. Not only this, it came about in a world of prejudices and was consistently surrounded by them. They weren't going to have an ideological epiphany that severely broke from their tradition and world culture for no reason.

    You're doing historical anachronism

  • source
  • parent